Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies
暂无分享,去创建一个
Christian A. Vossler | N. Hanley | R. Tourangeau | W. Hanemann | M. Ryan | W. Adamowicz | J. Bennett | K. Boyle | R. Johnston | R. Brouwer | R. Scarpa | T. Cameron | Christian A Vossler
[1] K. Boyle,et al. Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation , 2019 .
[2] Danny Campbell,et al. Disentangling the influence of knowledge on attribute non-attendance , 2017 .
[3] Nicolas Jacquemet,et al. Referenda Under Oath , 2017 .
[4] Elena Y. Besedin,et al. Biophysical Causality and Environmental Preference Elicitation: Evaluating the Validity of Welfare Analysis over Intermediate Outcomes , 2017 .
[5] Erlend Dancke Sandorf,et al. Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos , 2016 .
[6] J. Meyerhoff,et al. Will the alphabet soup of design criteria affect discrete choice experiment results , 2016 .
[7] Christian A. Vossler,et al. Alternative Value Elicitation Formats in Contingent Valuation: A New Hope , 2016 .
[8] Kevin J. Boyle,et al. Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames , 2016 .
[9] N. Lazar,et al. The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose , 2016 .
[10] D. Mccloskey,et al. The Oxford Handbook of Professional Economic Ethics , 2016 .
[11] Matthew C. Rousu,et al. Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students , 2016 .
[12] Christian A. Vossler,et al. Chamberlin Meets Ciriacy‐Wantrup: Using Insights from Experimental Economics to Inform Stated Preference Research , 2016 .
[13] Stephane Hess,et al. Decision uncertainty in multi-attribute stated preference studies , 2016 .
[14] John M. Rose,et al. Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field , 2015 .
[15] R. Johnston,et al. Multiscale Spatial Pattern in Nonuse Willingness to Pay: Applications to Threatened and Endangered Marine Species , 2015, Land Economics.
[16] Catherine L. Kling,et al. Understanding Behavioral Explanations of the WTP-WTA Divergence Through a Neoclassical Lens: Implications for Environmental Policy , 2015 .
[17] K. Hall,et al. Ecosystem Services Indicators: Improving the Linkage between Biophysical and Economic Analyses , 2015 .
[18] Gregory Colson,et al. Deception in Experiments: Towards Guidelines on use in Applied Economics Research , 2015, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.
[19] K. Train,et al. An Adding-up Test on Contingent Valuations of River and Lake Quality , 2015, Land Economics.
[20] J. Meyerhoff,et al. The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context , 2015 .
[21] Jay R. Corrigan,et al. Three reasons to use annual payments in contingent valuation surveys: Convergent validity, discount rates, and mental accounting ☆ , 2015 .
[22] S. B. Olsen,et al. A Within‐Sample Investigation of Test–Retest Reliability in Choice Experiment Surveys with Real Economic Incentives , 2015 .
[23] N. Hanley,et al. Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences , 2015, Land Economics.
[24] Iain Fraser,et al. Visual Attention and Attribute Attendance in Multi-Attribute Choice Experiments , 2015 .
[25] D. Cantor,et al. How Much Gets You How Much? Monetary Incentives and Response Rates in Household Surveys , 2015 .
[26] Mark Oppe,et al. Learning and satisficing: an analysis of sequence effects in health valuation. , 2015, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.
[27] Sharon L. Lohr,et al. Allocation for Dual Frame Telephone Surveys with Nonresponse , 2014 .
[28] W. Adamowicz,et al. Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children , 2014, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
[29] Robert J. Johnston,et al. Modeling Spatial Patchiness and Hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay , 2014 .
[30] A. Daly,et al. Handbook of Choice Modelling , 2014 .
[31] Nick Hanley,et al. The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good , 2014 .
[32] Nick Hanley,et al. Social Norms, Morals and Self-interest as Determinants of Pro-environment Behaviours: The Case of Household Recycling , 2014 .
[33] John M. Rose,et al. Stated choice experimental design theory: the who, the what and the why , 2014 .
[34] Daniel McFadden,et al. The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being , 2014 .
[35] J. Herriges,et al. The measurement of environmental and resource values : theory and methods , 2014 .
[36] J. List,et al. Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice , 2014, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
[37] Caspar G. Chorus,et al. Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: utility maximization, regret minimization, or both? , 2014 .
[38] Caroline Vass,et al. Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2014, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.
[39] Sandra Notaro,et al. Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents' own money , 2014 .
[40] Carl-Erik Särndal,et al. Aspects of Responsive Design with Applications to the Swedish Living Conditions Survey , 2013 .
[41] J. Whitehead,et al. From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's “Dubious to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent Valuation , 2013 .
[42] T. Stevens,et al. Oaths and hypothetical bias. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.
[43] Berit Hasler,et al. Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay , 2013 .
[44] Kevin J. Boyle,et al. What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity , 2013 .
[45] N. Hanley,et al. Measuring the Local Costs of Conservation: A Provision Point Mechanism for Eliciting Willingness to Accept Compensation , 2013, Land Economics.
[46] J. C. van den Bergh,et al. Estimation of Distance-Decay Functions to Account for Substitution and Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Research , 2013, Land Economics.
[47] Roger Tourangeau,et al. Summary Report of the AAPOR Task Force on Non-probability Sampling , 2013 .
[48] Thomas Sterner,et al. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - A multiple country test of an oath script , 2013 .
[49] J. Boyd,et al. Using Ecological Production Theory to Define and Select Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation , 2013, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.
[50] Roger Tourangeau,et al. The Science of Web Surveys , 2013 .
[51] James N. Sanchirico,et al. Conservation values in marine ecosystem-based management , 2013 .
[52] Eleanor Singer,et al. The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys , 2013 .
[53] J. Brick,et al. Explaining Rising Nonresponse Rates in Cross-Sectional Surveys , 2013 .
[54] S. Watson,et al. Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field , 2012 .
[55] Anna Alberini,et al. Valuation of Mortality Risk Attributable to Climate Change: Investigating the Effect of Survey Administration Modes on a VSL , 2012, International journal of environmental research and public health.
[56] S. Navrud,et al. Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines , 2012 .
[57] Marianne Promberger,et al. “Pay them if it works”: Discrete choice experiments on the acceptability of financial incentives to change health related behaviour , 2012, Social science & medicine.
[58] K. Train,et al. Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation , 2012 .
[59] R. Carson. Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available , 2012 .
[60] James J. Murphy,et al. Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation , 2012 .
[61] J. Hausman. Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless , 2012 .
[62] Jinhua Zhao,et al. From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number? , 2012 .
[63] S. Blumberg,et al. Wireless substitution: state-level estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010-2011. , 2012, National health statistics reports.
[64] Jeffrey Bennett,et al. Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: Evidence from an Australian choice experiment , 2012 .
[65] W. Botzen,et al. Monetary Valuation of Insurance Against Flood Risk Under Climate Change , 2012 .
[66] Michael Getzner,et al. Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.
[67] Tommy Stanley,et al. Meta-Regression Analysis in Economics and Business , 2012 .
[68] John M. Rose,et al. Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation , 2012 .
[69] J. Meyerhoff,et al. Protester or Non‐Protester: A Binary State? On the Use (and Non‐Use) of Latent Class Models to Analyse Protesting in Economic Valuation , 2012 .
[70] Joanna Coast,et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. , 2012, Health economics.
[71] Bas Donkers,et al. Complexity Effects in Choice Experiment–Based Models , 2012 .
[72] H. Lemij,et al. Surveillance for ocular hypertension: an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation. , 2012, Health technology assessment.
[73] John Rolfe,et al. Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia , 2012 .
[74] Elena Y. Besedin,et al. Integrating Ecology and Economics for Restoration: Using Ecological Indicators in Valuation of Ecosystem Services , 2012 .
[75] Stephane Hess,et al. Accounting for Latent Attitudes in Willingness-to-Pay Studies: The Case of Coastal Water Quality Improvements in Tobago , 2012 .
[76] S. Mourato,et al. ‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies , 2012 .
[77] John M. Rose,et al. Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models? , 2012 .
[78] D. Rigby,et al. The Self Selection of Complexity in Choice Experiments , 2012 .
[79] Arne Risa Hole,et al. Inferred vs Stated Attribute Non-Attendance in Choice Experiments: A Study of Doctors' Prescription Behaviour , 2012 .
[80] B. Fischhoff,et al. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence Based User's Guide , 2012 .
[81] John M. Rose,et al. Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design , 2012 .
[82] B Hasler,et al. Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments--a non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.
[83] Mandy Ryan,et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. , 2012, Health economics.
[84] Richard T. Carson,et al. Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History , 2012 .
[85] Kathleen Segerson,et al. Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators , 2012, Land Economics.
[86] R. Johnston,et al. Valuing Farmland Protection: Do Empirical Results and Policy Guidance Depend on the Econometric Fine Print? , 2011 .
[87] Jing Zhang,et al. Unraveling the Choice Format Effect: A Context-Dependent Random Utility Model , 2011, Land Economics.
[88] David A. Hensher,et al. Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification , 2011 .
[89] Don A. Dillman,et al. Surveying the General Public over the Internet Using Address-Based Sampling and Mail Contact Procedures , 2011 .
[90] John A. List,et al. Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off , 2011 .
[91] Henrik Lindhjem,et al. Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes , 2011 .
[92] N. Hanley,et al. How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments☆ , 2011 .
[93] Morgan M. Millar,et al. Improving Response To Web and Mixed-Mode Surveys , 2011 .
[94] Andrew Lloyd,et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.
[95] Iain Fraser,et al. A general treatment of ‘don't know’ responses from choice experiments , 2011 .
[96] Dan Rigby,et al. Skew and attribute non-attendance within the bayesian mixed logit model , 2011 .
[97] Carsten Lynge Jensen,et al. Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments , 2011 .
[98] S. Navrud,et al. Are Internet Surveys an Alternative to Face-to Face Interviews in Contingent Valuation? , 2011 .
[99] Jordan J. Louviere,et al. Exploring Scale Effects of Best/Worst Rank Ordered Choice Data to Estimate Benefits of Tourism in Alpine Grazing Commons , 2011 .
[100] Mickael Bech,et al. Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. , 2011, Health economics.
[101] John Rolfe,et al. Comparing Responses from Internet and Paper-Based Collection Methods in more Complex Stated Preference Environmental Valuation Surveys , 2011 .
[102] Arne Risa Hole,et al. A discrete choice model with endogenous attribute attendance , 2011 .
[103] Klaus Glenk,et al. How Sure Can You Be? A Framework for Considering Delivery Uncertainty in Benefit Assessments Based on Stated Preference Methods , 2011 .
[104] Richard T. Carson,et al. A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches , 2011 .
[105] Joel Huber,et al. Survey Mode Effects on Valuation of Environmental Goods , 2010, International journal of environmental research and public health.
[106] Frank Lupi,et al. Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters , 2010 .
[107] J. Shogren,et al. Preference Elicitation Under Oath , 2010 .
[108] David A. Hensher,et al. Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter? , 2010, Land Economics.
[109] Christian A. Vossler,et al. Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments , 2010 .
[110] Basil Sharp,et al. Choice Experiment Adaptive Design Benefits: A Case Study , 2010 .
[111] Kevin J. Boyle,et al. The Benefit-Transfer Challenges , 2010 .
[112] Roy Brouwer,et al. Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment , 2010, Land Economics.
[113] Robert L. Hicks,et al. Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach , 2010 .
[114] J. Deshazo,et al. Is an Ounce of Prevention Worth a Pound of Cure? Comparing Demand for Public Prevention and Treatment Policies , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.
[115] Masahide Watanabe. Nonparametric Estimation of Mean Willingness to Pay from Discrete Response Valuation Data , 2010 .
[116] M. Bliemer,et al. Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations , 2010 .
[117] David Hoyos,et al. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments , 2010 .
[118] T. Flynn. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling , 2010, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.
[119] Kevin J. Boyle,et al. Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments , 2010 .
[120] Jonathan E. Alevy,et al. How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature , 2010, Land Economics.
[121] Roy Brouwer,et al. Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments , 2010 .
[122] Patricia A. Champ,et al. Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment , 2010, Land Economics.
[123] Brett Day,et al. Ordering anomalies in choice experiments , 2010 .
[124] Geoffrey R. Gerdes,et al. Distributional Preferences and the Incidence of Costs and Benefits in Climate Change Policy , 2010 .
[125] D. Hensher,et al. Parameter transfer of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: implications for willingness to pay , 2010 .
[126] Mimako Kobayashi,et al. Willingness to Pay Estimation When Protest Beliefs are not Separable from the Public Good Definition , 2010 .
[127] E. Verhoef,et al. Biases in Willingness-to-Pay Measures from Multinomial Logit Estimates Due to Unobserved Heterogeneity , 2010 .
[128] Andrew Daly,et al. Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-art and the State-of-practice: Proceedings from the Inaugural International Choice Modelling Conference , 2010 .
[129] Pernilla Ivehammar. The Payment Vehicle Used in CV Studies of Environmental Goods Does Matter , 2009 .
[130] Justin Baker,et al. Models of Location Choice and Willingness to Pay to Avoid Hurricane Risks for Hurricane Katrina Evacuees , 2009, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.
[131] J. Deshazo,et al. Scenario Adjustment in Stated Preference Research , 2009 .
[132] Christian A. Vossler,et al. Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality , 2009 .
[133] I. Bateman,et al. Procedural Invariance Testing of the One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Elicitation Method , 2009, The Review of Economics and Statistics.
[134] P. Boxall,et al. Complexity in Choice Experiments: Choice of the Status Quo Alternative and Implications for Welfare Measurement , 2009 .
[135] Richard C. Bishop,et al. A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias , 2009, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.
[136] Alan Krupnick,et al. The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation , 2009 .
[137] Kota Asano,et al. Distribution Free Consistent Estimation of Mean WTP in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 2009 .
[138] Christian A. Vossler,et al. Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions , 2009 .
[139] Michiel C.J. Bliemer,et al. Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs , 2009 .
[140] Randall S. Rosenberger,et al. Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer: Avoiding Unintended Consequences , 2009, Land Economics.
[141] Jürgen Meyerhoff,et al. Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity , 2009, Land Economics.
[142] John M. Rose,et al. Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: Implications for willingness to pay , 2009 .
[143] David A. Hensher,et al. Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation , 2009 .
[144] M. Ryan,et al. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. , 2009, Health economics.
[145] Peter Goos,et al. An Efficient Algorithm for Constructing Bayesian Optimal Choice Designs , 2009 .
[146] John M. Rose,et al. Incorporating model uncertainty into the generation of efficient stated choice experiments: A model averaging approach , 2009 .
[147] Vikki Entwistle,et al. Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. , 2009, Health economics.
[148] Iain Fraser,et al. Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation , 2009 .
[149] John Rolfe,et al. The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments , 2009 .
[150] N. Hanley,et al. Coherent Arbitrariness: On Value Uncertainty for Environmental Goods , 2009, Land Economics.
[151] Kevin J. Boyle,et al. Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies , 2009 .
[152] Robert E. Wright,et al. Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland , 2008 .
[153] Kenneth Train,et al. Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps , 2008 .
[154] M. Ryan,et al. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .
[155] Shalini P. Vajjhala,et al. Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods , 2008 .
[156] R. Scarpa,et al. Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments , 2008 .
[157] John M. Rose,et al. Design Efficiency for Non-Market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure it, What to Report and Why , 2008 .
[158] Jordan J. Louviere,et al. Designing Discrete Choice Experiments: Do Optimal Designs Come at a Price? , 2008 .
[159] J. Lusk,et al. Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty , 2008 .
[160] Jorge E. Araña,et al. Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects , 2008 .
[161] Robert M. Groves,et al. The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias A Meta-Analysis , 2008 .
[162] M. Thiene,et al. Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods , 2008 .
[163] M. Hanemann,et al. Emotions and decision rules in discrete choice experiments for valuing health care programmes for the elderly. , 2008, Journal of health economics.
[164] John M. Rose,et al. Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives , 2008 .
[165] Jürgen Meyerhoff,et al. Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ? , 2008 .
[166] Michael W. Link,et al. A Comparison of Address-Based Sampling (ABS) Versus Random-Digit Dialing (RDD) for General Population Surveys , 2008 .
[167] M. Johannesson,et al. Eliciting Willingness to Pay without Bias using Follow-up Certainty Statements: Comparisons between Probably/Definitely and a 10-point Certainty Scale , 2008 .
[168] Ian J. Bateman,et al. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness , 2008 .
[169] Riccardo Scarpa,et al. Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments , 2008 .
[170] T. Cameron,et al. Popular Support for Climate Change Mitigation: Evidence from a General Population Mail Survey , 2008 .
[171] Ian J. Bateman,et al. Decoy Effects in Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation: Asymmetric Dominance , 2008, Land Economics.
[172] Charles F. Manski,et al. Identification for Prediction and Decision , 2008 .
[173] Magnus Johannesson,et al. Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment , 2008 .
[174] Jordan J. Louviere,et al. Modeling the effects of including/excluding attributes in choice experiments on systematic and random components , 2007 .
[175] R. Johnston,et al. Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter? , 2007 .
[176] M. Ryan,et al. Models of intrapartum care and women’s trade‐offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed‐methods study , 2007, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.
[177] Edith D. de Leeuw,et al. The Influence of Advance Letters on Response in Telephone Surveys A Meta-Analysis , 2007 .
[178] J. Knetsch. Biased valuations, damage assessments, and policy choices: The choice of measure matters ☆ , 2007 .
[179] R. Tourangeau,et al. Sensitive questions in surveys. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.
[180] Neil A. Powe,et al. Redesigning Environmental Valuation: Mixing Methods Within Stated Preference Techniques , 2007 .
[181] Arne Risa Hole,et al. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. , 2007, Health economics.
[182] I. Bateman,et al. Valuing risk reductions: Testing for range biases in payment card and random card sorting methods , 2007 .
[183] Geoffrey R. Gerdes,et al. Valuing publicly sponsored research projects: Risks, scenario adjustments, and inattention , 2007 .
[184] Richard T. Carson,et al. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions , 2007 .
[185] Riccardo Scarpa,et al. Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study , 2007 .
[186] J. Roosen,et al. Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food , 2007 .
[187] J. Oviedo,et al. Comparing Payment-Vehicle Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies for Recreational Use in Two Protected Spanish Forests , 2007 .
[188] Joanna Coast,et al. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods , 2007, Journal of health services research & policy.
[189] F. Reed Johnson,et al. Experimental Design For Stated-Choice Studies , 2006 .
[190] Ian J. Bateman,et al. Anchoring and Yea-saying with Private Goods: An Experiment , 2006 .
[191] Ian J. Bateman,et al. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP , 2006 .
[192] John B. Loomis,et al. Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: Needed improvements in primary study design and reporting , 2006 .
[193] Mickael Bech,et al. Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? , 2006, Health economics.
[194] D. Hensher. How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load , 2006 .
[195] Colin Camerer,et al. Modeling the Psychology of Consumer and Firm Behavior with Behavioral Economics , 2006, Journal of Marketing Research.
[196] Emily Lancsar,et al. Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? , 2006, Health economics.
[197] Alan Krupnick,et al. Valuation of Natural Resource Improvements in the Adirondacks , 2006, Land Economics.
[198] Peter Goos,et al. A Comparison of Criteria to Design Efficient Choice Experiments , 2006 .
[199] Arthur J. Caplan,et al. Cheap Talk Reconsidered: New Evidence From CVM , 2006 .
[200] Robert M. Groves,et al. Responsive design for household surveys: tools for actively controlling survey errors and costs , 2006 .
[201] Robert J. Johnston,et al. Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum , 2006 .
[202] Julian C. Jamison,et al. To Deceive or Not to Deceive: The Effect of Deception on Behavior in Future Laboratory Experiments , 2006 .
[203] J. Meyerhoff,et al. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation , 2006 .
[204] K. S. Carson,et al. Necessary Conditions for Demand Revelation in Double Referenda , 2006 .
[205] Zhishi Wang,et al. Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao , 2006 .
[206] David F. Layton,et al. Embracing Model Uncertainty: Strategies for Response Pooling and Model Averaging , 2006 .
[207] David A. Hensher,et al. Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment , 2006 .
[208] E. McColl. Cognitive Interviewing. A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design , 2006, Quality of Life Research.
[209] Jeffrey Bennett,et al. A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions , 2006 .
[210] Richard D. Smith,et al. It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. , 2006, Health economics.
[211] J. Louviere,et al. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices , 2005 .
[212] T. Cameron,et al. Comprehensive selectivity assessment for a major consumer panel: attitudes toward government regulation of environment, health and safety risks , 2005 .
[213] W. Adamowicz,et al. Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models , 2005 .
[214] Robert E. Wright,et al. Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test , 2005 .
[215] C. Starmer,et al. Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis , 2005 .
[216] R. Scarpa,et al. Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences , 2005, Land Economics.
[217] Richard C. Bishop,et al. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation , 2005 .
[218] Christian A. Vossler,et al. Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: Examining validity through scope sensitivity testing , 2005, Aquatic Sciences.
[219] R. Scarpa,et al. Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment , 2005, Land Economics.
[220] Shawn A. Ross,et al. Survey Methodology , 2005, The SAGE Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Religion.
[221] Wiktor L. Adamowicz,et al. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment , 2005 .
[222] Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al. Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence , 2005 .
[223] Erwin H. Bulte,et al. The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values : Evidence from a field study , 2005 .
[224] K. Boyle,et al. Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions , 2005, Land Economics.
[225] Knut Veisten,et al. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.
[226] J. A. Barrios. Generalized sample selection bias correction under RUM , 2004 .
[227] James J. Murphy,et al. Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism? , 2004 .
[228] Thomas Laitila,et al. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual , 2004 .
[229] F. Conrad,et al. Spacing, Position, and Order Interpretive Heuristics for Visual Features of Survey Questions , 2004 .
[230] Michael D. Kaplowitz,et al. Multiple Methods for Developing and Evaluating a Stated‐Choice Questionnaire to Value Wetlands , 2004 .
[231] P. Riach,et al. Deceptive Field Experiments of Discrimination: Are They Ethical? , 2004 .
[232] D. Whittington. Ethical Issues with Contingent Valuation Surveys in Developing Countries: A Note on Informed Consent and Other Concerns , 2004 .
[233] Joanna Coast,et al. Issues arising from the use of qualitative methods in health economics , 2004, Journal of health services research & policy.
[234] Elizabeth Martin,et al. METHODS FOR TESTING AND EVALUATING SURVEY QUESTIONS , 2004 .
[235] T. Schroeder,et al. Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks , 2004 .
[236] Ian J. Bateman,et al. Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split-Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism , 2004, Land Economics.
[237] Robert P. Berrens,et al. Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis , 2004 .
[238] M. Ryan. A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. , 2004, Health Economics.
[239] D. Kahneman. Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics , 2003 .
[240] Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al. Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews , 2003, Land Economics.
[241] J. Lusk,et al. Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness‐To‐Pay for Golden Rice , 2003 .
[242] D. Hantula,et al. Applied behavioral economics and consumer choice , 2003 .
[243] James J. Murphy,et al. A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation , 2003 .
[244] R. Kopp,et al. Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill , 2003 .
[245] Nick Hanley,et al. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.
[246] Christian A. Vossler,et al. Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon , 2003 .
[247] Christian A. Vossler,et al. A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum , 2003 .
[248] Ta Theo Arentze,et al. Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy , 2003 .
[249] David A. Hensher,et al. The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .
[250] M. Ryan,et al. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. , 2003, Health economics.
[251] Peter Martinsson,et al. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. , 2003, Health economics.
[252] Susana Mourato,et al. Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope , 2003 .
[253] A. Karlstrom,et al. A Simple Method of Incorporating Income Effects into Logit and Nested‐Logit Models: Theory and Application , 2003 .
[254] N. Hanley,et al. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? , 2002 .
[255] Dana Marie Bauer,et al. Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use , 2002, Land Economics.
[256] N. Hanley,et al. Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches , 2002 .
[257] Gregory L. Poe,et al. Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same? , 2002 .
[258] Michel Wedel,et al. Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models , 2002 .
[259] Peter A. Groothuis,et al. Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions , 2002 .
[260] Gregory L. Poe,et al. Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation , 2002 .
[261] T. Cameron,et al. Updating Subjective Risks in the Presence of Conflicting Information: An Application to Climate Change , 2002 .
[262] Trudy Ann Cameron,et al. Individual Option Prices for Climate Change Mitigation , 2002 .
[263] J. R. DeShazo,et al. Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency , 2002 .
[264] Timothy C. Haab,et al. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation , 2002 .
[265] P. Clarke. Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of health care. , 2002, Health economics.
[266] Jordan J. Louviere,et al. Stated Values and Reminders of Substitute Goods: Testing for Framing Effects with Choice Modelling , 2002 .
[267] Gregory L. Poe,et al. The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs , 2002 .
[268] Alan Randall,et al. The Effect of Resource Quality Information on Resource Injury Perceptions and Contingent Values , 2002 .
[269] Arthur Lewbel,et al. Estimating Features of a Distribution from Binomial Data , 2001 .
[270] F. Johnson,et al. Sources and Effects of Utility-Theoretic Inconsistency in Stated-Preference Surveys , 2001 .
[271] Joffre Swait,et al. Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice , 2001 .
[272] John A. List,et al. What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? , 2001 .
[273] Raquel Carrasco,et al. Binary Choice With Binary Endogenous Regressors in Panel Data , 2001 .
[274] P. Corso,et al. Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation , 2001 .
[275] Richard C. Bishop,et al. Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias , 2001 .
[276] Ian J. Bateman,et al. Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation , 2001 .
[277] J. Swait,et al. The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching , 2001 .
[278] Kevin J. Boyle,et al. A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats , 2001 .
[279] M. Hanemann,et al. One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 2001, Review of Economics and Statistics.
[280] J. Hoehn,et al. Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation , 2001 .
[281] Angela Bate,et al. Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care , 2001 .
[282] D. Hensher,et al. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .
[283] D. McFadden,et al. MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .
[284] R M Groves,et al. Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. , 2000, Public opinion quarterly.
[285] J. Bennett,et al. Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies , 2000 .
[286] Ian Witten,et al. Data Mining , 2000 .
[287] Erik Meijer,et al. Measuring Welfare Effects in Models with Random Coefficients , 2000 .
[288] A. Lewbel,et al. Semiparametric qualitative response model estimation with unknown heteroscedasticity or instrumental variables , 2000 .
[289] K. Train,et al. On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths , 2000 .
[290] Mark Morrison,et al. Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies , 2000 .
[291] Christopher Cornwell,et al. Survey Response‐Related Biases in Contingent Valuation: Concepts, Remedies, and Empirical Application to Valuing Aquatic Plant Management , 2000 .
[292] B. Jorgensen,et al. Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement , 2000 .
[293] Nicholas E. Flores,et al. Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence , 2000 .
[294] E. Singer,et al. The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. , 2000, Public opinion quarterly.
[295] Ian J. Bateman,et al. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies , 1999 .
[296] R. Carson. Contingent Valuation: A User's Guide† , 1999 .
[297] J. Angrist,et al. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with Funding from Estimation of Limited-dependent Variable Models with Dummy Endogenous Regressors: Simple Strategies for Empirical Practice , 2011 .
[298] Susan M. Chilton,et al. Do focus groups contribute anything to the contingent valuation process , 1999 .
[299] Joan L. Walker,et al. Extended Framework for Modeling Choice Behavior , 1999 .
[300] Ian J. Bateman,et al. Public Attitudes to Contingent Valuation and Public Consultation1 , 1999, Environmental Values.
[301] T. F. Weaver,et al. Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management , 1999 .
[302] J. Coast. The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics. , 1999, Health economics.
[303] R. G. Cummings,et al. Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method , 1999 .
[304] Gregory L. Poe,et al. Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism , 1999 .
[305] Robin Gregory,et al. Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters , 1999 .
[306] J. Whitehead,et al. Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? A comment , 1999, Journal of Political Economy.
[307] M. Ryan. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. , 1999, Social science & medicine.
[308] Nicholas E. Flores,et al. Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods , 1998 .
[309] K. Rollins,et al. The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values , 1998 .
[310] Raquel Carrasco,et al. Binary Choice with Binary Endogenous Regressors in Panel Data: Estimating the Effect of Fertility on Female Labor Participation , 1998 .
[311] Daniel Kahneman,et al. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods , 1998 .
[312] Glenn C. Blomquist,et al. Resource Quality Information and Validity of Willingness to Pay in Contingent Valuation , 1998 .
[313] John D. Hey,et al. Experimental economics and deception: A comment , 1998 .
[314] Richard T. Carson,et al. Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.
[315] J. Louviere,et al. Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .
[316] K. Boyle,et al. Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions , 1997 .
[317] B. Kriström. Spike Models in Contingent Valuation , 1997 .
[318] I. Bateman,et al. Budget-Constraint, Temporal, and Question-Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies , 1997 .
[319] Jeffrey Englin,et al. Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods , 1997 .
[320] Richard C. Bishop,et al. Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods , 1997 .
[321] I. Bateman,et al. A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences , 1997 .
[322] Ian J. Bateman,et al. Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation , 1997 .
[323] J. Loomis,et al. The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California , 1997 .
[324] Clifford Nowell,et al. Implementing the voluntary contribution game: A field experiment , 1996 .
[325] V. Kerry Smith,et al. Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis , 1996 .
[326] Jordan J. Louviere,et al. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation , 1996 .
[327] William D. Schulze,et al. A Test for Payment Card Biases , 1996 .
[328] Jean C. Buzby,et al. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates , 1996 .
[329] J. Loomis. How large is the extent of the market for public goods: evidence from a nationwide contingent valuation survey , 1996 .
[330] Peter A. Diamond,et al. Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1996 .
[331] Glenn C. Blomquist,et al. Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent , 1995 .
[332] M. Teisl,et al. Test-Retest Reliability of Contingent Valuation with Independent Sample Pretest and Posttest Control Groups , 1995 .
[333] Randall A. Kramer,et al. An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation , 1995 .
[334] Anna Alberini,et al. Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models , 1995 .
[335] Stephen K. Swallow,et al. Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights from Ethnographic Interview Techniques , 1995, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.
[336] R. Carson,et al. Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1995 .
[337] Richard T. Carson,et al. Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope , 1995 .
[338] John Quiggin,et al. Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire , 1994 .
[339] J. Hausman,et al. Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .
[340] W. Michael Hanemann,et al. Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation , 1994 .
[341] J. Louviere,et al. Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .
[342] Keith Chrzan,et al. Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis , 1994 .
[343] Richard T. Carson,et al. The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies , 1993 .
[344] J. Louviere,et al. The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .
[345] Barbara Kanninen,et al. Design of Sequential Experiments for Contingent Valuation Studies , 1993 .
[346] Richard C. Bishop,et al. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. , 1993 .
[347] A. E. Luloff,et al. Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation , 1992 .
[348] W. Michael Hanemann,et al. Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 1991 .
[349] L. Feick. LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS THAT INCLUDE DON'T KNOW RESPONSES , 1989 .
[350] J. Andreoni. Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.
[351] John C. Bergstrom,et al. Information Effects in Contingent Markets , 1989 .
[352] Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .
[353] John B. Loomis,et al. Test-Retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison of General Population and Visitor Responses , 1989 .
[354] William H. Desvousges,et al. Focus Groups and Risk Communication: The “Science” of Listening to Data , 1988 .
[355] D. Morgan. Focus groups for qualitative research. , 1988, Hospital guest relations report.
[356] Richard C. Bishop,et al. Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques , 1988 .
[357] R. Gibbons,et al. Cheap Talk Can Matter in Bargaining , 1988 .
[358] Theodore Groves,et al. Information, Incentives, and Economic Mechanisms: Essays in Honor of Leonid Hurwicz , 1987 .
[359] Timothy O'Riordan,et al. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method , 1987 .
[360] Kenneth Train,et al. Consumer Attitudes and Voluntary Rate Schedules for Public Utilities , 1987 .
[361] Trudy Ann Cameron,et al. Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1987 .
[362] D. McFadden. The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research , 1986 .
[363] P. V. Marsden,et al. Handbook of Survey Research , 1985 .
[364] Richard G. Walsh,et al. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality , 1985 .
[365] James D. Wright,et al. Handbook of Survey Research. , 1985 .
[366] P. Schmidt,et al. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .
[367] W. Michael Hanemann,et al. Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .
[368] John B. Kidd,et al. Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biasses , 1983 .
[369] M. Thayer. Contingent valuation techniques for assessing environmental impacts: Further evidence , 1981 .
[370] W. W. Muir,et al. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity , 1980 .
[371] G. Marwell,et al. Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. II. Provision Points, Stakes, Experience, and the Free-Rider Problem , 1980, American Journal of Sociology.
[372] Richard C. Bishop,et al. Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? , 1979 .
[373] Edward G. Carmines,et al. Reliability and Validity Assessment , 1979 .
[374] G. Marwell,et al. Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free-Rider Problem , 1979, American Journal of Sociology.
[375] D. Dillman. Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .
[376] P. Green,et al. Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .
[377] Daniel A. Graham,et al. Cost-Benefit Analysis Under Uncertainty , 1977 .
[378] C. Manski. The structure of random utility models , 1977 .
[379] Vithala R. Rao,et al. Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .
[380] K. Lancaster. A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.
[381] S. Ciriacy-Wantrup,et al. Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices , 1947 .
[382] William L. Fleisher,et al. Cognitive Interviewing , 2019, Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques.
[383] Vidal Díaz de Rada Igúzquiza,et al. Internet, Phone, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Don A. Dillman, Jolene D. Smyth y Leah Melani Christian. (New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons, 2014) , 2016 .
[384] S. Hess,et al. Heterogeneous preferences toward landscape externalities of wind turbines – combining choices and attitudes in a hybrid model , 2015 .
[385] J. Rolfe,et al. Do Respondents Adjust Their Expected Utility in the Presence of an Outcome Certainty Attribute in a Choice Experiment? , 2015 .
[386] Rick Baker,et al. Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation , 2014 .
[387] W. Viscusi. Chapter 7 - The Value of Individual and Societal Risks to Life and Health , 2014 .
[388] Deborah Marshall,et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.
[389] Andrew G. Meyer. Intertemporal Valuation of River Restoration , 2013 .
[390] J. Deshazo,et al. Demand for health risk reductions , 2013 .
[391] Ian J. Bateman,et al. Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies , 2012 .
[392] J. Martin-Ortega,et al. Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability , 2012 .
[393] P. Boxall,et al. Analysis of the economic benefits associated with the recovery of threatened marine mammal species in the Canadian St. Lawrence Estuary , 2012 .
[394] Morten Raun Mørkbak,et al. The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments , 2012 .
[395] J. Louviere,et al. Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.
[396] Peter Goos,et al. Bayesian Conjoint Choice Designs for Measuring Willingness to Pay , 2011 .
[397] Carl-Erik Särndal,et al. The 2010 Morris Hansen lecture dealing with survey nonresponse in data collection, in estimation , 2011 .
[398] J. Louviere,et al. Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis , 2010 .
[399] J. Bennett,et al. Choice Experiments in Developing Countries , 2010 .
[400] B. Kanninen,et al. Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies : a common sense approach to theory and practice , 2010 .
[401] Trudy Ann Cameron,et al. Differential Attention to Attributes in Utility-theoretic Choice Models , 2010 .
[402] Justin L. Tobias,et al. What are the consequences of consequentiality , 2009 .
[403] Jelke Bethlehem,et al. Indicators for the representativeness of survey response , 2009 .
[404] Andrew Daly,et al. Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models , 2009 .
[405] R. Tourangeau,et al. Fast times and easy questions: the effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times , 2008 .
[406] Mandy Ryan,et al. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .
[407] N. Powe. Redesigning Environmental Valuation , 2007 .
[408] A. Tversky,et al. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .
[409] D. O’Reilly,et al. Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements , 2007 .
[410] Michael A. Dimock,et al. Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey , 2006 .
[411] Glenn W. Harrison,et al. Making Choice Studies Incentive Compatible , 2006 .
[412] R. Groves. Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys , 2006 .
[413] Wiktor L. Adamowicz,et al. Supporting Questions in Stated-Choice Studies , 2006 .
[414] G. Kalb. Methodology in Labour Economics; A Review of the Literature , 2006 .
[415] L. Hurwicz. Incentive aspects of decentralization , 2005 .
[416] John M. Rose,et al. Using Classical Simulation-Based Estimators to Estimate Individual WTP Values , 2005 .
[417] Kenneth Train,et al. Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .
[418] D. McFadden,et al. The New Science of Pleasure Consumer Behavior and the Measurement of Well-Being , 2005 .
[419] Ian J. Bateman,et al. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity , 2004 .
[420] M. Couper,et al. METHODS FOR TESTING AND EVALUATING SURVEY QUESTIONS , 2004 .
[421] Mandy Ryan,et al. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. , 2003, Applied health economics and health policy.
[422] Karl Rihaczek,et al. 1. WHAT IS DATA MINING? , 2019, Data Mining for the Social Sciences.
[423] Thomas C. Brown,et al. A primer on nonmarket valuation , 2003 .
[424] K. Train. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .
[425] Rachel Croson,et al. Why and how to experiment: Methodologies from experimental economics , 2002 .
[426] Mark Morrison. Rethinking contingent valuation: ethics versus defensibility? , 2002 .
[427] D. Pearce,et al. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques Summary Guide , 2002 .
[428] J. Bennett,et al. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation , 2001 .
[429] R. Dunford,et al. Role of Knowledge in Assessing Nonuse Values for Natural Resource Damages , 2001 .
[430] Ian J. Bateman,et al. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and developing Countries , 2001 .
[431] Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al. The Impact of "No Opinion" Response Options on Data Quality: Non-Attitude Reduction or an Invitation to Satisfice? , 2001 .
[432] I. Bateman,et al. Efficiency Gains Afforded by Improved Bid Design versus Follow-up Valuation Questions in Discrete-Choice CV Studies , 2000 .
[433] John B. Loomis,et al. Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions , 2000 .
[434] J. Bennett,et al. Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1999 .
[435] J. G. Hollands,et al. The visual communication of risk. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.
[436] F. Bonnieux,et al. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework , 1999 .
[437] T. Brown,et al. Trichotomous Choice: A Possible Solution to Dual Response Objectives in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions , 1999 .
[438] Brian Bishop,et al. Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation , 1999 .
[439] P. Todd,et al. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .
[440] K. Train. Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People , 1998 .
[441] Jordan J. Louviere,et al. Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .
[442] Jason F. Shogren,et al. Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning , 1996 .
[443] Kevin J. Boyle,et al. Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. , 1996 .
[444] Dale Whittington,et al. Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries , 1996 .
[445] Thomas C. Brown,et al. Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation , 1996 .
[446] Marisa J. Mazzotta,et al. Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis , 1995 .
[447] Richard T. Carson,et al. Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods , 1995 .
[448] Barbara Kanninen,et al. Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation , 1995 .
[449] L. Thurstone. A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .
[450] J. Payne,et al. How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation , 1994 .
[451] Alan Randall,et al. A Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method , 1994 .
[452] Peter A. Groothuis,et al. Sample bias in contingent valuation: A comparison of the correction methods , 1994 .
[453] Edward E. Leamer,et al. Report of the NOOA Panel on Contingent Valuation , 1993 .
[454] J. Cooper. Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1993 .
[455] Peter A. Groothuis,et al. Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Analysis of a combination phone/mail survey , 1993 .
[456] John B. Loomis,et al. Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment , 1993 .
[457] Jerry A. Hausman,et al. Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .
[458] Barbara Kanninen,et al. Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 1993 .
[459] John B. Loomis,et al. Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models , 1992 .
[460] Michael R. Veall,et al. Bootstrapping the Process of Model Selection: An Econometric Example , 1992 .
[461] John C. Whitehead,et al. Environmental Interest Group Behavior and Self‐Selection Bias in Contingent Valuation Mail Surveys , 1991 .
[462] D. Dillman. The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys , 1991 .
[463] K. McConnell. Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation , 1990 .
[464] K. Boyle. Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions , 1989 .
[465] Janet Mancini Billson,et al. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research , 1989 .
[466] S. F. Edwards,et al. Overlooked Biases in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Some Considerations , 1987 .
[467] Richard C. Bishop,et al. Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games , 1984 .
[468] Edward E. Leamer,et al. Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics , 1983 .
[469] P. Schoemaker. The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations , 1982 .
[470] J. Heckman. Sample selection bias as a specification error , 1979 .
[471] Stanley Presser,et al. The Assessment of "No Opinion" in Attitude Surveys , 1979 .
[472] R. Luce,et al. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .